Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Monday, August 4, 2014

How not to write a rebuttal

The ironically named site Beyond Highbrow savages the Chateau with all the fury of a toothless lamb:

Roissy’s site is truly horrifying, and the man is a monster. He’s the biggest asshole in the known universe. Most of his commenters are orbiting him hoping to bask in the narcissistic glow he gives off. They are also trying to be an even bigger asshole than Roissy, and that’s probably not even possible. I mean not physically possible. I mean there is probably a law of physics that prevents any man from being a bigger dick than Roissy.

Knowing Roissy, he'll probably print that out, laminate it, and use it to successfully pick up two Ukrainian blondes this weekend. That being said, I have to admit it is nice to always be able to point to the two R's as proof that I am but a humble moderate in the controversial field of intersexual relations.

And as further evidence that the many would-be critics of Game remain irrelevant due to either a) their cognitive inability to comprehend it or b) their willful insistence on miscategorizing it, there is this logical debacle:

Look. This is the way it goes. Probably in any unglued society, the Alphas cannot possibly make up more than 15-20% of the males.

Let us suppose you had a society full of Roissy addicts who had all somehow managed to reach the pinnacle of Alphaness. It would not make sense. Because no society can be all Alpha Male (at least I do not think so). In Arab and Middle Eastern, Russian, Iberian, Latin American and Filipino society, sure, you have a huge % of men playing the “Alpha” game. They look and act like Alphas (especially in Arab and Middle Eastern culture).

But even here, the same 80-20 rule must apply. Suppose a hot woman, instead of being approached by one high-value (Alpha) man a day, is now being approached by five or six high-value Alpha men a day? What’s she going to do? Bang all the studs and whore it up? You kidding? The 80-20 rule, hard and fast, will continue to apply.

In a society where all of the men act like Alpha Males, females will simply pick off the top ~20%, the most Alpha of the Alphas and most Sigma of the Sigmas, relegate the rest of the regular Alphas to Beta, Delta or Gamma and toss the least Alpha of the Alphas (who are nevertheless very much Alpha men) to the Omega bin.

This hypothetical situation is impossible. Not implausible, but impossible. Since Alpha is defined as a certain level of success with women, a society of men where all men all reach the Alpha pinnacle is, by definition, a society where all men are successful with women.

Furthermore, since women find Alpha behavior attractive, even if we address his less extreme hypothesis that 100 percent of men merely mimic Alpha appearance and behavior successfully, this does not mean the 80-20 rule will survive. The 80-20 rule is not a law of physics; it's not even a law of economics. It is merely an observational rule of thumb.

Consider: if every man turned into Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Joe Mangienello, women would not ignore 80 percent of them. Robert is completely ignoring the rules of attraction and getting the application of the 80-20 rule exactly backwards. The point is that women will reliably choose nothing, or sharing an attractive man, over settling for an unattractive one. This does not mean they will ignore attractive men simply because there happen to be a lot of them.

I am not saying that Game is beyond criticism. Of course it isn't. But it is a little tedious to see that its critics remain so resolutely incompetent. I mean, what does it say for a critic when he has observably failed to understand that which he labels "stupid".

And speaking of critics calling things stupid, I was recently amused to observe that what a Whatever reader once described as my "stupid little Game site" had more pageviews last month than Whatever has been averaging for the last eight months.

They would - even in a boyband where every male is in the top hotness percent, one or two guys receive all the action when they are all together. The alpha of the pack is the alpha of the pack, doesnt matter who else is in there.

The war between the sexes never ends, it just evolves new weaponry. If more men employ the advantages of game, more women will find new shit tests to filter out the players from the poseurs. There will never be a time in human history when girls will offer the average man access to their pussies without at least putting up a figurative fight.

"This does not mean they will ignore attractive men simply because there happen to be a lot of them."

I think this sentence is inaccurate due to supply and demand.

If there are not enough attractive women available to attractive men, attractive men will aim for less attractive women, and thirst will kick in. This thirst will cause the average woman to consider herself attractive, and the usual cycle will continue.

Make all woman attractive, men will aim for attractive women. Make all men attractive, women will still aim for the more attractive.

I've been in social situations where I have a circle of female orbiters and I lose them all (briefly) because a more attractive man enters the room, and he would also lose them all if an even hotter man entered the room. Women dont care about averages or third or fourth place, they want the one.

Observation. Attractive men NEVER go without female attention, even if there are lots of other, more attractive men around. And I've been out club-hopping with everyone from Dolph Lundgren and Guns-n-Roses to Joel West, a male Calvin Klein model.

Granted one girl did drop me like a hot potato to run off with the lead guitarist from the Black Crowes, but that was simple hypergamy. It took less than 90 minutes to replace her.

Case study: One Direction. By separate any of these dudes will enter any teenage circle and make a killing. In group, 80% of the girls will jump at Harry Styles. If Bieber is in the room, between him and Styles will get 90% of the action.

"Mick Mars scored Emi Canyn."

He's still above the average man, he will score pussy, just not as much as Tommy, as long as Tommy is there.

I've been in social situations where I have a circle of female orbiters and I lose them all (briefly) because a more attractive man enters the room, and he would also lose them all if an even hotter man entered the room.

Key word: "briefly". - because I reset the peaking order and get them all back - nada for the other dudes until I make my pick, doesnt matter how hawt these guys were.

Bottom line I've never seen a case where all the girls show interest on most men regardless of whos in there. The bigger celebrity, or hottest, or more charismatic, or just "more" gets it all. If there are different categories where to rank this "more" then there will be different groups of groupies around each guy. If the female to male ratio is 1, that will mean a bunch of men with no women.

He attacks the premise of the site by putting up a strawman, namely, his "positional good" theory, IOW, that the 80/20 rule still applies. But two things:

1) Most men won't be reading Roissy, but those who do (with an open mind) would have a huge advantage and move themselves up in the sexual hierarchy. I should know, I've done it myself.

2) Say Roissy went viral and the average men in the country reads his advice. Would the 80/20 rule still apply? Perhaps. But the women would be far more attractive and better-behaved in a country where the average man acted like Roissy. Fat chicks, feminists, and those who do other weird things to their bodies such as chopping off their hair, would no longer get (positive) attention from men at all.

But today, we have a plague of male feminists and thirsty pedestalizers which is influencing female behavior for the worse. (It also shows that, if you ignore the Arab countries which keep their women covered in tents, the countries he cites as being full of Alpha cocks-of-the-walk are also prime targets for men hunting for foreign wives.)

Aquinas, I think R's ranking system is short sighted, but that's beyond the point. I like Vox's and R's insofar as they are descriptive, and I dont like them insofar as they are propositions. R's system is used to "define" what alpha is, which is absurd, but a great weapon when you want to injure some people who probably deserve it.

Anyway, you didnt understand it:

"I would suggest that using 'frequency of sexual conquests' as a measure of whether or not you are dominant within male groupings"

The ranking is about socio-sexual hierarchy. "Sexual", not "male grouping" hierarchy. Define what a socio-SEXUAL hierarchy is, with the context of the Sex Market Place, or let's call it CASUAL (not lifelong monogamy, but serial monogamy at best, with a bunch of flings in the middle) SEX marketplace, where in lack of moral boundaries your desiderability by women are going to result in having a bunch of sex, and THEN Roissi's ranking is perfectly descriptive of what's going on in the mainstream culture.

It's short sighted, sure, but hey, you're the one paying attention to the SexualMarketPlace when you should be more into how to gain upper hand with your male groupings.

You can still use 80% of game with your male groupings and that will make you go up in the ladder, which will invariably make your more attractive to the women who pay attention to your group. Just that in your case you wont cash on it. More power to you.

Just read Beyond Highbrow's piece. The first thing that struck me was how redundant it is. "Assholeassholeasshole, narcissistnarcissistnarcissist, 20/8020/8020/80". This is a recurring pattern among critics of the alt-right. I believe John Scalzi repeated the phrase "Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit" over and over again early in the Great Rabbit Hunt of 2013, as if the repetition would somehow add more force to a weak jab. It's an interesting pattern, one worthy of observation. It seems to be characteristic of emotionalism.

On that note, the second thing that struck me was the visceral nature of BH's response to Roissy.

Roissy unfortunately has started to butt his nasty little head into the comments, splattering little drops of cruelty disguised as wisdom here or there. He has to pop up in the comments threads to show you he’s still alive and to frighten you. You read one of his articles, and you are aghast. “Please tell me this guy died after he wrote this!,” you think. “Please don’t tell me I have to share the planet with this Tool!”

Like those zombies in The Night of the Living Dead that can hardly be killed, he pops up like an evil little jack in the box in the comments. Each time we wince at his bile, our heart falls because humanity sinks a little bit lower with every scribble of Roissy’s.

This is a very disheartening website.

...And don’t forget to wear some face protection on PUA sites. The sheer malign hatred emanating off these sites can literally fly off the screen and pound your face. That stuff stings like acid.

Roissy's comments actually "frighten" BH. Much like the "trigger warning" label, BH is saying that reading Roissy's stuff actually HURTS him. That's another pattern - the "Social Justice Warriors" who are shocked, weakened, and even physically sickened merely by observing the ideas that they're supposedly fighting against. They're like a weaker, lamer version of Captain Planet.

He said he doubts many older men read CH. Can't say for sure, but I'm one of them: late 50s married with kids. I don't read it, and this site, to learn pick up tricks. I read them to understand why I made so many poor decisions regarding life and women. Thanks to people like Roissy, Roosh, etc, I now understand. Unfortunately I can't unmake the decisions, but it now makes more sense.

I disagree with Aquinas when he asserts that game doesn't work, but I wholeheartedly agree that men shouldn't gauge our value on what women think of us. To say that one man is "alpha" because women adore him while another man is "beta" or lower because they don't -- regardless of any number of other and more important considerations -- is servile and feeds the Female Imperative. Such a worldview elevates Idiocracy's Clevon over Sir Isaac Newton. In a civilized society, game is far less important because women's impulses are not allowed to set the course of family formation and reproduction. To the extent we worship game, we surrender control to women and wind up harming civilization rather than helping it.

You said that the socio-sexual hierarchy was "obviously false". Given that it is observationally true, your statement does not comport with reality.

Which means it is Wrong.

The first step towards understanding is to stop believing things that are Wrong.

As we can see just from the past 50 years in the US, absent some external constraint on their sexual expression, women will gladly share the top 20% of men. You can quibble about whether 20 is accurate or not, but it's good enough for descriptive purposes.

When women NEEDED the provisioning of men for their survival, better than 80% of men were able to find mates because the women on the lower end of the scale would settle for the beta and even gamma males.

But since that's no longer the case, women are free to chase after the most desirable men and ignore the rest.

Aquinas Dad,It's rude to derail a thread with irrelevant OT comments. If you really want to spend your time discussing with Vox something that you think "ought to be ignored", irrational as that is, then you should email him, or at least wait for thread where it's on topic.

"Aquinas Dad said... ...2) "game's" description of female psychology is certainly wrong for at least most women August 4, 2014 at 8:15 AM"

This line right here gives the game away. You're writing this at the behest of an indignant woman. A woman that doesn't want you to see the truth of her control over your view of reality.

Just because she's your wife or that she's accepted Jesus as her savior does not preclude her fear driven need to manipulate you for her own ends. But it's you that lets her get away with it. You've put her on a pedastal.

I save particularly good or insightful comments, here's one tailor made for you.

What follows is a comment David Collard wrote in response to a blog post by Elusive Wapiti on May 3, 2012 8:54 PM.

"david collard said... I found that it was only when I accepted that my wife was very much a woman, not an angel (or a man), that I really started loving her.

You cannot love a phantom, or a figment of your imagination. Men who pedestalise their wives are not in love with a real woman, but with a mental construct. And I sometimes think there is an underlying resentment there too."

What David is saying here is that putting a woman on a pedastal, i.e. white knighting, is actually idolatry. If you're a Christian that should wake you up.

Some advice, either you find the truth or the truth will hit you so hard you will wonder why it hates you so much.

GAME, as it was conceived, is about having sex with stranger, multiple women. The winner of the game is the man who scores the most pussy, and the loser is the one who does none. In this GAME rape is not allowed so the woman must want to have sex with you, the more she wants it, be better. Any behavior that is unnatractive and doesnt appeal to women's preferences and produces contempt or rejection is antiGAME and shunned away. At the end, the man who scored the most pussy is the Alpha, and the one who didnt score is the Omega, and all the wannabes are Betas. In this game some players will be so successful they will get most of the sex, and some will be so unsuccessful they will see none, as in virtually any other GAME.

This is a closed universe. Thats where it starts and where it ends. You may say you dont like it, that you dont practice it, that it's against your religion. You can attack it and destroy it. What you cannot say is that is it "false" because you can validate this yourself by looking where its happening.

What I personally dont like is that there is overlap, there's reuse of words, there's a conflict of language because of the double meaning and multiple contexts for words like Alpha / Beta, and then the whole thing becomes a dictionary for insulting people.

Say. I dont need to talk to you, I can call you a Gamma and be done.

So I say you didnt understand, and it's obvious, because you're probably talking about Alpha / Beta in a social environment that has multiple things going on, and not JUST the sexual trade. To your points:

"1) The hierarchy of ‘alpha/beta/gamma/etc.’ is obviously false."

Its not false since its describes a fact.

"2) The pseudo-psychology of female motivation espoused by “game” is obviously false."

There are two main pillars in female psychology by game: Hypergamy and Solipism, which one is obviously false?

Remember that the game happens in the Casual Sex Marketplace, which percentage of the sex would you deem accurate? is everyone having the same sex?

"4) The ancillary stuff (dress well, exercise, conversational skills, etc.) is done much better by other, older, tested methods that have nothing to do with 1,2, and 3"

Which other, older, tested method is teaching men to have casual sex?

"5) PUAs admit that even under optimal conditions “game” just doesn't work that well, meaning that its ‘success’ can be seen as equal or less than any other BCAYCDI (Be Confident And You Can Do It) system""

PUA is not GAME, and by "game not working" you might mean "tactics not working" but this, in reality, means that a man that is not attractive cannot make himself attractive "with a tactic" because, well, hypergamy and solipism.

All game can be summed as way's to trigger women's hypergamy and solipism.

* * *

Now, that's a very closed universe. In a broader reality, the WHY game works and the dynamics inherent there, these have much broader uses that tie back to Alpha Beta hierarchy in non-casual-sex interactions.

I would argue that “game” should be ignored because it is obviously of no value.

I would point out that you should try actually reading Thomas Aquinas and learn how to structure a logical argument. You have failed to do so here, and in an abysmally inept manner.

I have stated my reasons for believing the socio-sexual hierarchy to be false (it is based upon male attractiveness to and sexual success with multiple women virtually in isolation; it is a participation in rather than a refutation of Feminist conceptualizations of the nature and role of sexual activity; it requires a rejection of Christian virtues that lie at the heart of Western civilization; etc.)

And you're obviously wrong.

1. It is not based in isolation. Game theory fully accounts for the man who COULD have lots of women but chooses not to, but you are either too stupid or too dishonest to admit that. The reason that Roissy and I, among others, don't stress this is because of all the delusional gammas who would promptly convince themselves that they could have had the head cheerleader and the homecoming queen and the Kappa Kappa Gamma if they'd felt like it. We keep it objective because, frankly, nobody gives a damn how the faithful married men happen to rate.

2. Game is not theology. That doesn't make it a participation in Feminist conceptualizations of sex theory.

3. It absolutely does not require a rejection of Christian virtues for the very obvious reason that it doesn't require anything.

You are lying, Aquinas Dad. I am calling you out. You are straight out lying. And lying is no Christian virtue. You should be embarrassed for yourself.

these kinds of reactions like from "beyond highbrow" are usually the result of having girls on a pedestal. being exposed to the true nature of girls & the anger that men have as a result is just too much for them to handle.

Vox, As for your statement that "[Game] absolutely does not require a rejection of Christian virtues for the very obvious reason that it doesn't require anything" I note that this blog has a prominent link to this page;http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/

Can you explain how such adivce as "make her jealous", "evade, tease, and obfuscate", "always keep two in the kitty", etc. are compatible with Christian morality? You mentioned St. Thomas, above; I can provide links to the Catechism explaining why these are problematic, if you need.

PhantomZodak, I think you're right, that pedestalization is at least a part of it. Here's how he describes himself on his About page:

Personally, I have been described as “otherworldly,”, “beyond highbrow,” “one of those totally out to lunch genius types,” and “off in my own world.” I have a very high IQ, and I’m told that a lot of high-IQ folks are like this. There doesn’t seem to be much I can do about it, but it does cause me problems.

Looks to me like a misguided, impractical idealist. Idealists don't react well when reality conflicts with their precious ideals, hence BH's terrified sputtering in response to Roissy. Pedestalization is one particularly common form of idealism, of course.

Aquinas, I don't see the contradiction nor the coherence of your argument. The full paragraph you have been quoting reads exactly as follows:

Many want to believe that getting girls is ancillary to being a true alpha male; that the real measure of an alpha lies in his ability to dominate other men, or his command of his environment, or his thirst for swashbuckling adventure. While these are admirable alpha traits, they are nothing but a means to an end. Make no mistake, at the most fundamental level the CRUX of a man’s worth is measured by his desirability to women, whether he chooses to play the game or not. Pussy is the holy grail. That is why the obese, socially maladroit nerdboy who manages to unlock the gate to the secret garden and bang a 10 regularly is an alpha male. And that is also why the rich, charming entrepreneur who because of an emotional deficiency or mental sickness lives mired in parched celibacy is not an alpha male.

If I have read this passage correctly, and I welcome any correction, N is merely a product of the state and, therefore, a fairly convenient (and reliable) unit of measure. The core component of rank is not N, but the desirability that produces it. Therefore, it isn't sexual activity that makes someone alpha, it is the freedom one has to engage in it.

You're also confusing popularity and desirability. These are two fundamentally different things. One can be popular, but sexually undesirable. Likewise, one can be sexually desirable, but unpopular.

He clearly, explicitly states that success in business, popularity with men, popularity with *women* cannot make you an Alpha - only sexual activity can. If this does not mean 'only sexual activity defines alpha' then what does?

@AquinasDad

It's not that difficult to understand. Roissy defines an "alpha" as a man who can regularly have sex with attractive women. The key word is "can". If he will only do so within the confines of a marriage, that doesn't change the fact that he can. If you're popular with and a respected leader of men, and even popular with women, but the women all think you're "such a nice guy" and "like a brother", that would mean that you can't have sex with attractive women.

Vox, As for 'success' I stated in this thread that grooming, posture, etc. are obviously good. But "game's" stated goal is to have a lot of sex with a lot of women. The self-reported success rate of PUAs advocating game like Roosh, etc. are terrible. There was the infamous case of the PUA getting a ton of praise for sleeping with 27 women in a year - but he had to approach 1,000 women first!I consider a success rate of less than 3% to be a failure.Feel free to disagree, but I think plenty of other men would agree

PUA is by default the lowest return / investment approach to game of them all. Still, you still dont understand what you're talking about:

"There was the infamous case of the PUA getting a ton of praise for sleeping with 27 women in a year - but he had to approach 1,000 women first!"

Translation: dude goes out 3 nights a week with the intent of having sex. Each of these nights he talks to 6-7 girls who are there for potentially having sex with guys like him. This results in some makeouts, some dates, and having sex with a new girl every 2 weeks.

If this sounds outrageous to you, what would be fair? most guys are going out like this and they dont get a new fuckbuddy every two weeks. If they are lucky they score once every two months, but they still go out and try.

* * *

When I did the player thing I got a new girl every time, but Im not a PUA.

D. Lane, But if that is the best a dedicated guy who devotes, essentially, his entire life to can achieve, of what value is it? he'd have more 'success' getting a trade, working an extra shift, and hiring escortsFurther, any BCAYCDI system would probably have as good placebo results, meaning - its just a placebo

The contradiction you've detailed, Aquinas, results from a category error. The things you have mentioned relate to socio-economic status, not value in the sexual market. While SES certainly improves ones standing in the sexual market, the latter is not dependent on the former. Vox isn't saying that Bob is of low SES because he can't attract women. He's saying that, in the sexual economy, Bob is of low value. These are different markets.

It is similar to the different between a canoe and a destroyer. Both are sea worthy vessels. But a canoe, while it may have immense utility to Jim on a camping trip, has no value whatsoever in a naval campaign.

This will fall on deaf ears, but... Roissy is not Game. Vox Day is not Game. Dalrock, Rollo Tomassi, Danger and Play, Deep Strength, Donalgraeme, the manosphere -- are not Game. Game would exist even if none of the foregoing did. No one advocating Game or masculinity or anything else pertaining to men gets it all correct. That's why a thousand flowers have bloomed in this area.

D. Lane, But that simply leads to a group of questions, such as - -Why do Christians care at all about the SMS since they aren't *in* the SMS? -How can a system that is focused exclusively on the SMS have anything to teach married men? -If "game" is both focused on the SMS *and* designed to maximize success in the SMS why is it so terrible at providing success in the SMS? -If the complaints about women are focused on their participation in the SMS (the 'cock carousel") how is participating in the same thing going to lead to a positive outcome overall? -If "game" is correct about conversational skills, grooming, etc. being a key element of the SMS (and, in fact, they are important to SES success) why aren't they pointing to sources of education that are both proven by decades AND more broadly applicable than "game"? Dale Carnegie, for example, has been around for decades, proven for decades, includes everything from books to personal coaches, and works in business, etc., as well [as a matter of fact, as I mentioned before, what I think "game" get's right is not a huge endorsement of "game" because others do those things better].

Or, more bluntly - getting laid a lot doesn't make you a winner and game isn't even that good at getting you laid a lot.

Deti, I wondered when you would arrive. Ah, yes, "game" is everywhere and nowhere, like Nirvana. You can tell if a man is alpha or beta but no one can really define alpha or beta. "Game" is only about having lots of sex with many beautiful women but it will help your Christian marriage just fine. "Game" is everything and nothing. Let me pre-empt you a few times, Deti. I am not saying 'just get it'; nor 'just be yourself', nor any of the other non-arguments you like to claim I am giving.

Deti, Serious question for you and others. Is "game" the 'sixtreen commandments' that are linked by this very blog? If yes, how can they apply to a marriage when they explicitly require unchaste behavior, a willingness to abandon a aprtner, etc.? If not, what is the definition of "game"? And if you cannot point to a single definition/list describing "game" how is it truly different from 'just get it'?

And let me preempt you, AD. You can argue it yourself, because I've already engaged you and proven you wrong at J4G and elsewhere. I don't have any interest in engaging with someone who willfully refuses to listen.

Look, just admit that you hate Game, you think it's immoral, and move on to getting your book published.

You're not really interested in this debate, because if you were, you'd be actually helping men. But you're not.

As far as I am concerned, you don't have anything to say about this issue unless you're actually teaching men about masculinity.

"-Why do Christians care at all about the [SMP] since they aren't *in* the [SMP]?"

Heh. Anyone who thinks Christian women are not in the SMP is fooling himself. Christian women most certainly are looking for sex with attractive men, regardless of their marital status.

On any given Sunday I can go to any Christian church in the US, Catholic or Protestant, and see many, many women who comport themselves in every way, shape, manner or form as sexual beings, using their sexual power to attract attractive men (whether those men are Christian or not).

This notion that Christian women are not using their sexual power, not having sex outside marriage, not engaging as sexual beings, is insanity.

You are wrong in the OP because you equate "hawt" with a fixed value. It is relative and will always remain so, just as things like "poor", "rich" and such remain relative. Expectations would change if 100% (or even 80% for that matter) of men met them.

All the members of the band are still just that, members of the band. All men could never be that by definition. If you had validated that all the male groupies got hot women you might have a point, but more details would need examining.

It is a very theoretical argument however, as 100% of men would never do all that was required, whatever the bar. People will sort themselves out, whatever the expectations.

You do have a bit of a blind spot, probably due to your own background, of the repulsiveness of the morals on exhibit at Roissy. I think you are intentional at what you do with respect to that, but immoral behavior remains wrong for Christian men as well.

Dalrock comes the closest at applying things from a purely Biblical frame, but his focus is a bit different.

Deti, All you have ever done is repeat the same 3-4 things I have never said, refused to define "game", and declared victory over and over again. Declaring victory != victory. I don't 'hate" "game" I think it is a farce. And of course I think "game" is immoral - that is a key part of what it *is*! And you once again are conflating "game" with "masculinity". Jealousy, deceit, promiscuity, infidelity, fear, lust - that isn't masculinity, but that is "game". What I teach - justice, fortitude, temperance, prudence, charity, hope, faith - THAT is masculinity.

If teasing women is wrong, then disciplining your child is wrong. You're assuming that "doing something that somebody else doesn't like" automatically makes you a bad person. That's probably through the influence of that crap catechism you've been reading. Anything coming out of the Vatican since that liberal revolution known as Vatican II cannot be trusted.

-Why do Christians care at all about the SMS since they aren't *in* the SMS?

I think you mean SMP (sexual marketplace). But everybody is in the SMP, all the time. It doesn't matter that you're married, it doesn't matter that you're in an exclusive church group. True, both those things may make the consequences of ignoring the SMP less relevant, but they won't make them fully go away.

-How can a system that is focused exclusively on the SMS have anything to teach married men?

Because if you act like a pushover BETA to your wife, it will make the odds of divorce much higher.

-If "game" is both focused on the SMS *and* designed to maximize success in the SMS why is it so terrible at providing success in the SMS?

You're taking one example of a man who tries the "spray and pray" method and hoping something sticks. I don't think that is a valid comparison.

-If the complaints about women are focused on their participation in the SMS (the 'cock carousel") how is participating in the same thing going to lead to a positive outcome overall?

If a man is amoral, he figures he might as well have some fun.

-If "game" is correct about conversational skills, grooming, etc. being a key element of the SMS (and, in fact, they are important to SES success) why aren't they pointing to sources of education that are both proven by decades AND more broadly applicable than "game"? Dale Carnegie, for example, has been around for decades, proven for decades, includes everything from books to personal coaches, and works in business, etc., as well[as a matter of fact, as I mentioned before, what I think "game" get's right is not a huge endorsement of "game" because others do those things better].

Because while life coaching may get you Bob's laudable qualities, it won't do diddly about giving you Ralph's attractive qualities.

Or, more bluntly - getting laid a lot doesn't make you a winner and game isn't even that good at getting you laid a lot.

You take a high-SMV loser and compare him with a low-SMV successful man. What about a high-SMV successful man and a low-SMV loser? My impression is that MMPORG neckbeards are much more common than tramps who pull attractive women.

Corvinus,Please expect me to ignore any future comments you make about the Church

Because sticking your head in the sand is the best way to solve problems.

Well, it is about 2 hours since Vox came in, hurled a few insults and left in a huff. Since I came here hoping to actually *discuss* things with him and he seems uninterested, I will aroint. Deti, I would love to actually talk to you about your background someday and have a real discussion

1. Christians are a part of the sexual market place. We simply occupy a different segment of it.

2. Sexual attraction is hardwired into the human brain. Understanding the psychology makes it possible to have a better married sex life. It is intuitive that the Biblically prescribed sharing of one’s body within marriage is both much easier and much more sincere when both parties are maximally attracted to one another. Not being married, I will defer further argument on this point to those who are.

3. It isn’t terrible at providing success in the sexual market. You are reading your own figures in exclusivity. Let’s say Roosh sleeps with 27 women in a year and that this figure reflects a 3% success rate. We know, empirically, that most men try to bed women. Yet, in their ignorance of game, do not even manage to drum up 1000 opportunities, let alone capitalize on 27 of them. The results speak for themselves. The success rate merely reflects the difficulty of the endeavor.

4. The purpose of game theory is to understand human psychology, not to provide a solution to the West’s moral decay. This is an irrelevant question.

5. Because game is both proven, for decades, and a specialized study. One does not use general psychology to explore the finer points of operant conditioning. Likewise, education on general success is not useful in the exploration of a specific area of interest, game.

6. In the sexual market the ability to get laid is the skill of merit. By definition, he who enjoys conquest enjoys victory. To illustrate the absurdity of what you’ve just said, consider the same notion in another market: Making a lot of money doesn’t make you economically successful. This is nonsense.

Corvinus, 'Obfuscate' is the key word. It means 'to obscure, confuse, or lie'. Lying is immoral. "Everyone is in the sexual marketplace"? I am afraid I will treat that as an unsupported assertion with obvious counter-examples that make it highly unlikely.

Even guys like Roosh etc. admit that getting one in 10 girls you approach to actually sleep with you is too high to be typical. This is after they admit that you have to be selective in the women you approach in order to have chances even as high as 3%. And they all further admit that there are entire classes of women,nationalities, etc. where "game" simply doesn't work. If the tenets of "game" were truly universal why would all those caveats exist?

"If a man is amoral" Yeah - kinda' my point.

"life coaching" yeah, but unfortunately "game" won't make you more physically attractive, either (remember, Bob was physically fit) so I fail to see the difference

"neckbeards'yeah - Roissy states specifically that a neckbeard loser having frequent sex trumps Bob, remember? How can anyone take that as a serious measure of success in anything but 'sex is the most important hing in the world, ever' worldview? Sure, a neckbeard in a basement needs to grow, but the gym, a diet, and more interaction are not unique to "game" (and done better elsewhere) so....

Yohami, No, what I listed are, yes, masculinity. And I know that "game" is really only about getting laid but, again - it isn;t very good at it and other systems are better at the core stuff of being better dressed, etc. That all being true, why bother with "game"? Especially if you are not amoral?

The core stuff is not being better dressed. If you mean by this "looking better", going to the gym, etc improving your life, this is called "DHV" or "high value", or, just being more attractive, which is part of game, aka hypergamy.

If you mean that a man should just get well dressed and get his act together and then a woman will find him, you've got no idea of what's it like out there.

Corvinus,'Obfuscate' is the key word. It means 'to obscure, confuse, or lie'.Lying is immoral.

Yes, lying is immoral. But no, obfuscation is not the same as lying. I don't lie to a girl and tell her I'm not interested in her. But I don't tell her I am either. Note that the definition says "or lie", not "and lie". Sort of like how a Christian living in a Muslim country isn't allowed to lie and say "I'm not a Christian", but he doesn't have to advertise the fact that he is, either.

And again, Roosh was using the "spray and pray" method, cold-approaching and walking up to total strangers. The "spray and pray" method does not Game make. It's only a method that some PUAs use, and even then in many cases only for practice until they become more comfortable with themselves.

[I obviously spoke of leaving too soon]D. Lane, 1.I would agree with 'marriage marketplace' until married. 2.Sure. Now, explain why you would look to "game" when its staunchest proponents admit that it simply won't work on a large fraction of women (maybe even a majority of women) and even within the groups where it *can* work it doesn't work very well? And since a great deal of the "game" arguments/strategies for being attractive involve jealousy, uncertainty, fear, infidelity, and the threat/actuality of abandonment - how are we to reconcile this with a moral outlook? 3. I hate to bring it up for fear of giving Deti an aneurysm, but what about those called 'naturals'? They have a much higher success rate, after all, than "game"? Let's even look at Vox's discussion of what, sigmas? Guys that ignore "game", ignore alphas, and are much more successful? If Vox is right, why emulate alphas, instead? And, once more, if you are moral/Christian, you shouldn't be promiscuous so....4. But "game's" focus is so very, very narrow AND so poor at success it can't be legitimately considered a model for understanding human psych, can it? I argue that the success rate, so close to failure, is just a placebo effect - ANY theory, even a false one, would produce similar results. If a guy thought that visualizing purple hippos when he spoke to a girl would get him laid and he approached 1,000 women in cllubs, etc., he would probably get laid 10-20 times just from interacting. This doesn't mean it was the purple hippos at work!5. I disagree for the reasons stated above6. Here is something I wrote some time back"What Christian advocates of “game” appear to be arguing is as follows,Advocate: ‘Look, these grifters may be immoral but their techniques obviously work! I mean, sure, you can’t con an honest man and even within their targets their con games only work a tiny fraction of the time but we need to look at the cons as just a tool box.’Opponents: ‘Look, this stuff is a con game no matter how much you polish it. Not only isn’t there anything to learn messing about with this stuff can be harmful’Advocate: ‘But there is nothing else out there! The church isn’t teaching us how to get rich, our fathers aren’t teaching us how to get rich, I have never found anything else on the internet about getting rich. Do you just want Christians to be poor?’Opponent: ‘Of course I don’t want anyone to be poor. But there are a lot of other ways to increase your wealth. You can get training, a second job, be frugal. I mean, the core ideas of being a good steard are right in the bible, especially in Proverbs, and there have been people writing about this for decades’Advocates: ‘Oh, ‘just be rich’, huh? Easy for you to say! You have no idea how the average man struggles and here you are saying ‘just be yourself’, and ‘just be rich’. You just don’t *care*, do you?’Opponent: ‘That is not what I am saying. I am saying there are a lot of alternatives to grifting that are moral and proven to work.”Advocate: ‘*I* have never heard of any, so they must not exist. Besides, look at the proof! Grifters talk about being confident, presenting a trustworthy facade, being well-groomed, etc. Well, since I started dressing and acting like a grifter people seem to trust me more. People don’t avoid me like they did when I dressed poorly and wouldn’t look them in the eye. This just proves grifting is true!’Opponent: ‘Listen, being confident, good grooming, and the rest of that isn’t grifting and it isn’t what we are talking about. We are talking about conning people out of their money.’Advocate: ‘See? You don’t even know what grifting means! Until I started internalizing grifting I had no confidence. Now that I act like a grifter I feel confident. Nothing you say can change my mind’"

Deti, If what you say is true about *your* background, why do your rebuttals of my arguments always end up being about *me and mine*? I mean, good for the goose, right? And I didn't ridicule you, Deti, I simply pointed out that an unsupported assertion isn't an argument and certainly isn't victory. No more, no less.And staying on-topic is just staying on-topic

and *now* I will go.If I have not replied it is not meant as a slight, insult, admittance of anything, etc. I am simply out of time. Also, I was mainly interested in an actual exchange with *Vox* which now seems unlikely. Let me also state - my dismissal of "game" is not meant as a dismissal of any person. I am aware that a great many people state that "game" has helped them improve their lives - I believe that (as I have stated many times) and I do not belittle or begrudge that. My ultimate goal is actually to point the way to what I firmly believe is a better path all around - a life of masculine (or feminine, for women) virtue. Deti, I am perfectly sincere when I state I would, yes, love to have a non-confrontational discussion with you. If there is some forum you are aware of and IF you are interested, please let me know. Thank you all for your time

I came here under the belief that you were willing to actually discuss "game" in a forthright manner. Instead I see little but slurs, ad hominems, and unsupported statements.

I don't care what you claim to see. You lied. You absolutely lied. Repeatedly. I am not willing to discuss anything with a dishonest interlocutor.

Well, it is about 2 hours since Vox came in, hurled a few insults and left in a huff.

I didn't do anything of the kind, you moronic asshole. You are lying again. That's three.

If not, what is the definition of "game"?

It's right on this blog, you charlatan. You are such an idiot, that you dare to come in here and offer dishonest criticism from ignorance. Are you seriously going to bring that weak shit here, of all places?

You claim to be a Christian, and yet the pagan Roissy is observably far more honest than you are. You should be ashamed of yourself.

"A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them."

Note that this encompasses some of the definitions about which you are complaining. And if you don't understand that everyone is in the SMP, at all times, then you clearly don't understand anything about economics.

I was mainly interested in an actual exchange with *Vox* which now seems unlikely.

No, you weren't. Because if you know anything about me at all, then you know that I answer honest questions from people who ask them in a reasonable manner. I don't have any time for morons who leap in and start making stupid naked assertions about things they clearly know very little about.

Especially the sort of assholes who go and make idiot claims about people "going off in a huff" simply because you don't get immediate attention. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

"Oh no, I must drop everything at once! Someone is wrong on the Internet!"

I still just can't get away!Vox, For all your bluster, you seem to fail to note that when I asked for a definition of "game" I was directly responding to someone who *denied that you had properly defined it*. No, really -read it. Deti claimed that, "Vox Day is not Game. Dalrock, Rollo Tomassi, Danger and Play, Deep Strength, Donalgraeme, the manosphere -- are not Game. Game would exist even if none of the foregoing did. No one advocating Game or masculinity or anything else pertaining to men gets it all correct." And my reply was to specifically ask Deti,"Deti,Serious question for you and others. Is "game" the 'sixtreen commandments' that are linked by this very blog?If yes, how can they apply to a marriage when they explicitly require unchaste behavior, a willingness to abandon a aprtner, etc.?If not, what is the definition of "game"?And if you cannot point to a single definition/list describing "game" how is it truly different from 'just get it'?"

So, in other words, any honest observer would see I am responding to a specific point from a specific commenter. FURTHER you took one line out that entire post out of the context of the discussion.Not very impressive, not very compelling.Not very surprising.

You're seriously going to explain relative value to an author of a book on Austrian economics? Obviously sexual values are relative... and subjective to a certain extent as well. There are plenty of women that other men find genuinely attractive that I think are way too fat.

You do have a bit of a blind spot, probably due to your own background, of the repulsiveness of the morals on exhibit at Roissy. I think you are intentional at what you do with respect to that, but immoral behavior remains wrong for Christian men as well.

Not at all. I simply don't expect non-Christians to adhere to a moral standard they don't recognize. Why would they?

For all your bluster, you seem to fail to note that when I asked for a definition of "game" I was directly responding to someone who *denied that you had properly defined it*. No, really -read it.

I don't give a quantum of a fuck what you did or didn't do. There is a FUCKING DEFINITION OF GAME right here. In several posts. It took me about two seconds to find them. It's not my fault, or Deti's fault, or anyone else's fault that you can't bother to a) look it up or b) ask in a civil manner before leaping in and shitting on the carpet screaming "pay attention to me now!"

Now, if you want to complain that my definition is not precisely the same as everyone else's, that's legitimate. We are all focused on different facets of Game. Dalrock does Christian Game. Roosh does Pickup Game. Heartiste is... kind of all over the place. I'm mostly an abstract observer, so I see things the others don't while they pay attention to details that I ignore.

Not very impressive, not very compelling. Not very surprising.

I'm glad you're not disappointed. Now fuck off already. You can't even tell the truth about leaving.

[My connection dropped before I could submit this comment. It may be a bit late now, but perhaps another commenter can correct anything I have misunderstood about the subject.]

I fear this back and forth will continue indefinitely. Nevertheless, I’ll respond one final time to these six points.

First off, the marriage market is different from the sexual market. They are closely related, but different. I do agree, however, that you are taken out of the marriage market once hitched.

Why game when it won’t “work” on the majority of women? Because it works on more women than the alternatives, especially where Millennials are concerned. Game is not a magic bullet. In increases your probability of success and gives insights into female and male psychology. Personally, I’ve never required game education for the simple reason that I’ve never had issues attracting women, nor do I feel any compulsion to conform to someone else’s success strategy. I do what I do. Nevertheless, the principles of game accurately reflect both my observation of, and experience with, women, as well as the problems many of them have in their relationships. It also explains, quite adequately, the nature of my successes and failures in the relationship arena. Why would I look to game? Because game is supported by reality.

Having game does not require promiscuity. Understanding the nature of intersexual relations in no way violates Christian doctrine. Furthermore, you don’t have to recognize game to possess it.

Game is a specialized study. By definition it is narrow in scope and application. You can “argue” all you like, but you have provided little more than conjecture in support of your position. If game strategies are so useless, why haven’t you presented actual data that demonstrates their inefficiency?

Noted.

Game, when properly internalized, is not about running a con. Yes, the techniques can be used to play shenanigans, but the heart of game is about authentic self-improvement. You can’t fake authentic confidence and masculinity any more than you can fake sincere love and dedication to the Lord. To repurpose your own straw man, game isn’t about shafting clients; its about doing a better job.

It appears you deleted the comment I was going to quote in response...

Any study that purports that 10-15% of women are "promiscuous" isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Most "good girls" have had some casual sex with a guy who closer fits the "alpha" description. I used to bounce...I know what I saw. In my 20s, I didn't have an "alpha" personality, but I had an "alpha" appearance and I know what I pulled based on just that alone. I'm positive that both Vox and Yohami will confirm the nonsense about the 10-15% number. I can imagine that it must be comforting to think "most girls are not like that" and think it is only 10-15% of "hardcore sluts" who give it up to the more alpha types.

You have to realize girls lie tremendously on these types of surveys. The rationalization hamster engages to make many encounters "not count". I remember reading a hilarious comment on a women's blog where a woman got her count down by 50%+ with all the times that didn't count. For example, she either slept with or gave a blowjob to a gay guy and it didn't count because he was gay.

It serves a certain agenda (denial of AFBB) to pretend that only 10-15% of sluts get with the top 10-15% of guys. I understand you are coming from a Christian perspective...given that it does you no good to stick your head in the sand, from a Christian perspective I would think the important matter is to instruct young women just how powerful and misleading their hypergamous drive is going to be in the presence of certain men.

You state in the OP: "if every man turned into Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Joe Mangienello, women would not ignore 80 percent of them."

That indicates it is a fixed value. Do you really believe that women would not find some other characteristic to value if all met the current ones? Most women will always want "the best" whatever that is. This means they would adjust and ignore a large chunk of the men in your example.

> I simply don't expect non-Christians to adhere to a moral standard they don't recognize. Why would they?

Neither would I. Though you still point to things like the poon commands as worth time. The problem is that they border on the things Christians are told to not even talk about.

You can certainly hold whatever standard you wish, but some are at odds with commands for Christians. I am referring to the promotion or even discussion here. I cannot find the reference, so I will retract this until I can find it, but I was thinking of the command to not even "talk of the evil that some do."

An open question: Can/should Christians encourage sinners to sin more effectively?

If all men became hunky millionaire doctors who water-ski on the weekends, yes, women would still find ways to rank them and try to snag the "best" one, because hypergamy. But all those men would be visible to them. A majority of men wouldn't be invisible to women as they are now. I think that's what Vox is getting at by rejecting the 80/20 rule here. The ratio of visible/invisible men can change.

If male SMV were more evenly distributed (which is what the spread of Game encourages), a woman would be more likely to happily marry an average-but-attractive guy, rather than holding out for a top alpha until she's hitting the Wall or entering into a harem to get a piece of one. The greater the SMV gap she perceives between the guys willing to sleep with her and the guys wanting to marry her, the longer she will hold out.

If all men magically became alphas all women would feel the need to qualify themselves to every man they met. Men, thus having control over women's sexuality, would come up rational rules to manage the disorder created by women offering themselves to everyone. Every man would have his own wife, and any children he produced with her would belong to him. He would have no responsibility for bastards. Men and women who rejected these rules would be forced to the margins of society.

"If all men magically became alphas all women would feel the need to qualify themselves to every man they met. Men, thus having control over women's sexuality, would come up rational rules to manage the disorder created by women offering themselves to everyone."

Right Weouro, because all men are innately rational and free of sin, and women, having no powers of discernment, are completely ruled by nothing but their own biology.

from a Christian perspective I would think the important matter is to instruct young women just how powerful and misleading their hypergamous drive is going to be in the presence of certain men.

Yes, this is a very important matter. Sadly women want to keep the blinders on, scream NAWALT, and stay in denial. A woman couldn't possibly subject to her own biology and unable to think clearly when in the presence of a high ranking man! Even when they witness it time and time again - often with their own selves. In order to heed the wisdom of how to avoid putting oneself in a situation where she can not control her biology, she must be honest with herself of what inherently exists within her. But women are so consumed with proclaiming they are not like that and those women who are...well, "they are just broken. They aren't as virtuous as me, I can control myself and never be influenced by an Alpha male presence."

A while back, shortly after I came to understand the truth of these things, I was in observation mode. I emailed Vox with one anecdote of what happens to a woman when in the presence of a natural Alpha. Since then I've observed it countless times and advised young wives married to naturals who would dearly love the overt flirting and advancements from other women to go away. All have been great examples to point out to my daughters to reinforce in them that their control begins and ends with situational awareness. They Bible is very clear about these things with men, "Don't go around that corner" - in avoiding the seductress. Those very wise words are so important for women as well.

Im not sure there's even a 10-15% of non sluts. What's the percentage of girls who dont have sex till marriage?

I'll assume the demographic group we're talking about is limited to non-Hispanic North America. If that's the case, it's not a stretch to say that a figure of 5 percent for non-sluts/women who remain virgins till marriage is ridiculously optimistic, if not downright silly.

Im not sure there's even a 10-15% of non sluts. What's the percentage of girls who dont have sex till marriage?

Yohami,

I don't think you even have to go as far as "don't have sex till marriage". For the purposes of argument, I'd be willing to concede "non-slut" to all women who have ONLY ever had sex within the context of a long-term boyfriend-girlfriend exclusive relationship. But I don't believe for one millisecond that describes 80% of women which is the view pumped by some. What is argued is there is a 20% that regularly engages in casual sex....the "sluts" who get with players, and then you've got a sizable middle group who has some casual flings, maybe 1-2 ONS, maybe one FWB. The next question is for those women who maybe have dabbled in some casual sex, which guys make up that group? Of course, we know the answer to that.

"The next question is for those women who maybe have dabbled in some casual sex, which guys make up that group? Of course, we know the answer to that. "

Right. This is part of the age old discussion that used to be, about the large "middle group" who have had some casual sex here and there.

By my observation -- and I have to believe there are a lot of men seeing this -- there is a big middle group of women who have played around with casual sex. These are women on the fence. They want to play around, but something constrains them most of the time. Eventually they say "what the fuck" and give it up to a very attractive man who happens to be in the right place at the right time. Then, for whatever reason, it ends a few days, weeks or months later.

There are those who believe this doesn't happen; or when it does happen, a less attractive man is the lucky recipient. But that suggests that women are having assortative sex, i.e, a female 6 is giving it up to a male 6. Not so. The female 6 non carousel rider in my experience and by my observation does not risk a casual sex encounter with an average man.

This is a fascinating thread. Its sad that too many men chose to ignore the real state of affairs concerning intergender dynamics. You have a Catholic man preaching that Game is immoral bad, thus its irrelevant because a man MIGHT chose to live it up and bang a lot of women. I think those who spent the time to debate this man did well indeed to show him the error of his thinking. However he is blinded by his ideology and wishes to see women as better than what they are. To him I say, remember that Eve was deceived first and then led the man into transgression with her lies.The article by BH is nothing but a hapless man who clearly has ZERO luck scoring women trying to change reality by writing that reality is false because he wishes it to be. He is a self proclaimed liberal with a typical liberal mindset.

Its funny how some men just refuse to see the truth that is staring them in their faces.

I wrote about this in more detail here http://thereinventionofman.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/and-a-fine-rebuttal-it-is/

Deti, you are right about the middle group. It exists and its huge. Most women i have met have had casual sex and its usually with the hawt alpha. When I ask women and they admit these facts about their past to me I always feel a little disgusted with them. I seem to get the truth more often than lies with both a curse and a blessing. However once the truth come out I have the necessary info to make a more informed decision about the woman.

I think Roissy is a little unhinged. A year ago or so, I wrote a comment to the effect of, "isn't focusing your entire life around trying to be attractive to women by definition appeasing women?", and he dedicated a whole post to flipping out at me. His articles are still really interesting though.